Does anybody else have concerns about Christopher West's teachings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ericcantona71
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ericcantona71 said:
I have been reading bits of Christopher’s west articles and books over the years and I have been noticing things in them that have been making me feel pretty uncomfortable. Whilst undoubtedly he has some good things to say about todays sex saturated society, some of his slants seem not very prudent, or a bit flowery, more based on psychological principles then Catholic ones, and at times in error.

I was surfing the internet the internet recently and saw this article and wondered what others think of it:

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-theology_of_the_body.htm

It really got me thinking, that maybe I wasn’t the only one who was feeling this way. Would be interested in other people’s view, as I am not to sure if my concerns are unfounded or not.
Click to expand...
What turned me away from him was his claim that sodomy is approved by the Church.
 
Lux_et_veritas said:
I had a link to the website of Christopher West on my blog and took it down after I found other writings which provided alternate explanations which did not coincide with West. For example, Fr. Albert Lauer in this online brochure, has a completely different viewpoint on oral sex in marriage than Christopher West.

I have submitted the link above, which carries both imprimatur and nihil obstat to the Ask an Apologist forum, which frequently quotes Christopher West and pleaded that they present Fr. Albert Lauers interpretation of Church teaching on such questions, as well and let Catholics use their conscience as a guide after seeing both explanations. The Church has not specifically addressed this issue which is why there can be diverging opinions. Catholic.com follows that of West and I wish they would consider presenting both sides.

My question to Ask an Apologist was never addressed. In all fairness, it’s possible they did not see it due to volume. This site does like to quote Chris West. I even started a thread in the Marriage and Family section to discuss the very topic above and to find out if others were as uncomfortable as I was, only to find my post deleted shorthly after I put it up. Yet, other threads on oral sex in marriage remained. I never could understand why it was deleted and never got any answers. I was discussing information that is public and carries an imprimatur and nihil obstat.

I believe Fr. Lauer’s position, which is also my pastor’s position, is the purest of all. I just can’t, in good conscience, accept Chris West’s teaching on this particular issue. My conscience followed Fr. Lauers thinking before I ever seen his brochure. I had always been troubled by Chris West’s teaching on this subject and had solace in the fact that I was not alone in that discomfort.

I have wanted to submit a paper to the CDF asking for clarification since there are such divergent viewpoints on the same topic. The Church has not addressed it which is why this is so. It can’t be both, imho but that is up to Holy Mother Church to figure out.

Truth be told, I wish I could reach Chris West and ask him what he thinks about Fr. Lauers teaching on the same subject. I know Chris is a fine Catholic who means well, but it doesn’t mean he can’t be wrong or open to dialogue. However, how do you reach him?

I would like to hear from other moral theologians after they read both viewpoints - that of West and Lauer - on the subject of Oral Sex in Marriage.
Click to expand...
And I’m afraid what you’d hear from those theologians, Lux, if they were honest, is, “Well, my opinion would be…” As you already correctly noted, the Church has not pronounced on this subject, which is going to be for two reasons:
  1. It doesn’t matter either way. If you believe it’s sinful, then don’t do it because it will be sin for you. But also don’t condemn your brother for doing it either because it is not an occasion for sin for him, the occasion in this particular case being subjective, rather than objective. (See St. Paul’s rule about eating meat sacrificed to idols for more.)
  2. Or, two, it simply has not been disputed widely and publicly enough yet to have the Church pronounce on it definitively.
I very strongly suspect that we’re dealing with #1 here, not #2. While completed oral sex is sinful, it is objectively sinful primarily, if not exclusively, because of it’s “lack of openness to life”.

To stimulate one part of your spouse’s body with another part of yours, on the other hand, is not sin as long as it maintains the dignity of both parties (in this case meaning, basically, that both parties welcome that form of stimulation).

SK
 
ChooseLove said:
what book are you getting this from??? mine doesn’t say this… it says this…
What about anal sex?
Again, a husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. What, then, are we to say about anal penetration as a form of foreplay to normal intercourse?
Some might conclude based on a legalistic application of the “so long as it leads to intercourse” principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouse who truly love each other aren’t looking to get away with as much as possible efore “breaking the rules”. They’re looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible.
For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can’t be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive organs. Futhermore, since the anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary but not something joyful, beautiful., and pleasing. Marital intimacy is meant to be joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one’s wife the health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?
Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking, for all of the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment."
sounds to me like he is saying don’t do it that way.
Click to expand...
I never said I got it from a book, I was quite clear to where I got my sources from 🙂 . Having said that I think you have a point. I did imply at the start of the thread that I am open to others opinions and my fears could be unfounded. Unfortunately I havent got the book with me I am staying in the US for a bit, but I left it abroad where I live. So I cant verify sources apart from those online. I wondered though if there are different versions of the books, that may contain slightly different info? Just a thought. Thanks for the info 👍
 
I don’t believe he used the words “the Church sanctions this action” but he did say there was nothing morally wrong with anal sex (aka, sodomy) which of course contradicts the opinion of the Church. Sorry, I got rid of the book so I can’t give a direct quote, I’m sure someone here has or can.
 
ericcantona71 said:
Now that is a strong claim! Can you expand on that a little?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Expand how? Which part exactly?🙂

I don’t believe he used the words “the Church sanctions this action” but he did say there was nothing morally wrong with anal sex (aka, sodomy) which of course contradicts the opinion of the Church. Sorry, I got rid of the book so I can’t give a direct quote, I’m sure someone here has or can.
 
I don’t know how anyone can say it’s not sodomy if the man doesn’t ejaculate. Is sexual intercourse, not sexual intercourse if the man doesn’t ejaculate?:confused:
 
Anal sex/sodomy = ejaculation

Otherwise, it can’t be considered intercourse in the context of Church teaching.

So yes, sodomy is condemned by the Church, and Christopher West condemns it as well.

What is NOT condemned is anal penetration as a part of foreplay. Should Catholics engage it it? Probably not, no, because it could lead to accidental ejaculation (IMO).

But is it objectively wrong when used as a part of foreplay? The Church has not stated such, and thus Catholics are free to form their own **OPINIONS **on the matter.
 
ericcantona71 said:
I wondered though if there are different versions of the books, that may contain slightly different info? Just a thought.
Click to expand...
looks like there are 2 copyrights on in 2000 and one in 2004
my book says revised edition, but even still to be that different in what is written, i’d say either it is misquoted or taken out of context of what was written.
 
luvmykids said:
I don’t know how anyone can say it’s not sodomy if the man doesn’t ejaculate. Is sexual intercourse, not sexual intercourse if the man doesn’t ejaculate?:confused:
Click to expand...
sexual intercourse
–noun genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.
[Origin: 1790–1800]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
sodomy (sod-uh-mee)]
Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See pederast.)
 
wanner47 said:
Anal sex/sodomy = ejaculation

Otherwise, it can’t be considered intercourse in the context of Church teaching.

So yes, sodomy is condemned by the Church, and Christopher West condemns it as well.

What is NOT condemned is anal penetration as a part of foreplay. Should Catholics engage it it? Probably not, no, because it could lead to accidental ejaculation (IMO).

But is it objectively wrong when used as a part of foreplay? The Church has not stated such, and thus Catholics are free to form their own **OPINIONS **on the matter.
Click to expand...
I looked up the definition of sodomy and got this…"the crime of oral or **anal sexual contact or penetration **between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal; especially : the crime of forcing another person to perform oral or anal sex —sod·om·ize /'sä-d&-“mIz/ transitive verb”

Says nothing about ejaculation in there. It’s wrong whether you ejaculate or not. I think that the Church probably just figured it wasn’t necessary to have to spell it out, and that since sodomy is considered a sin, that would encompass any form of it.
 
Lux_et_veritas said:
I believe Fr. Lauer’s position, which is also my pastor’s position, is the purest of all. .
Click to expand...
Thank you, Lux, for the link to Fr. Lauer’s brochure. I think particularly the following statement by Fr. Lauer is absolutely correct, “The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus.” The same would hold true for anal penetration. I just don’t see that either type of foreplay is consistent with the dignity of persons even if one or both spouse is willing, and I think it is troubling that anal penetration partakes of the sodomistic act even if it doesn’t complete it.

As for what others have claimed that West’s book says or does not say, it seems pretty obvious that more than one edition exists. It would be interesting to see which language came first, which edition has the imprimatur, and which has the foreword by a respected bishop.
 
latinmasslover said:
Expand how? Which part exactly?🙂

I don’t believe he used the words “the Church sanctions this action” but he did say there was nothing morally wrong with anal sex (aka, sodomy) which of course contradicts the opinion of the Church. Sorry, I got rid of the book so I can’t give a direct quote, I’m sure someone here has or can.
Click to expand...
from what i’ve read, he doesn’t say that at all. you can read it just by paging up a bit… i typed the whole thing out, EXACTLY as it was written in the book.
 
Solitude said:
Thank you, Lux, for the link to Fr. Lauer’s brochure. I think particularly the following statement by Fr. Lauer is absolutely correct, “The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus.” The same would hold true for anal penetration. I just don’t see that either type of foreplay is consistent with the dignity of persons even if one or both spouse is willing, and I think it is troubling that anal penetration partakes of the sodomistic act even if it doesn’t complete it.

As for what others have claimed that West’s book says or does not say, it seems pretty obvious that more than one edition exists. It would be interesting to see which language came first, which edition has the imprimatur, and which has the foreword by a respected bishop.
Click to expand...
West says the same thing. “But subjectively speaking, for all of the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.”

The book I’ve got has a foreword by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. O.F.M. CAP Archbishop of Denver, Colorado and has the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur
 
luvmykids said:
I looked up the definition of sodomy and got this…"the crime of oral or **anal sexual contact or penetration **between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal; especially : the crime of forcing another person to perform oral or anal sex —sod·om·ize /'sä-d&-“mIz/ transitive verb”

Says nothing about ejaculation in there. It’s wrong whether you ejaculate or not. I think that the Church probably just figured it wasn’t necessary to have to spell it out, and that since sodomy is considered a sin, that would encompass any form of it.
Click to expand...
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
sodomy (sod-uh-mee)]
Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See pederast.)

sexual intercourse
–noun genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.
[Origin: 1790–1800]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
 
luvmykids said:
I looked up the definition of sodomy and got this…"the crime of oral or **anal sexual contact or penetration **between persons or of sexual intercourse between a person and an animal; especially : the crime of forcing another person to perform oral or anal sex —sod·om·ize /'sä-d&-“mIz/ transitive verb”

Says nothing about ejaculation in there. It’s wrong whether you ejaculate or not. I think that the Church probably just figured it wasn’t necessary to have to spell it out, and that since sodomy is considered a sin, that would encompass any form of it.
Click to expand...
 
ChooseLove said:
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
sodomy (sod-uh-mee)]
Sexual intercourse that is not the union of the genital organs of a man and a woman. The term is most frequently applied to anal intercourse between two men or to sexual relations between people and animals. (See pederast.)

sexual intercourse
–noun genital contact, esp. the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.
[Origin: 1790–1800]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Click to expand...
What is the Church’s definition?
 
Solitude said:
Thank you, Lux, for the link to Fr. Lauer’s brochure. I think particularly the following statement by Fr. Lauer is absolutely correct, “The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus.” The same would hold true for anal penetration. I just don’t see that either type of foreplay is consistent with the dignity of persons even if one or both spouse is willing, and I think it is troubling that anal penetration partakes of the sodomistic act even if it doesn’t complete it.

As for what others have claimed that West’s book says or does not say, it seems pretty obvious that more than one edition exists. It would be interesting to see which language came first, which edition has the imprimatur, and which has the foreword by a respected bishop.
Click to expand...
Fr. Lauer states that “First, oral sex is not natural. It is contrary to natural law.” This remark is made in the context of OS as foreplay, not completion. To be consistent, wouldn’t we then have to say that kissing is equally “contrary to natural law,” in that the lips are clearly ordered to aiding in eating and speaking, and not in what is clearly carnal, erotic activity? There seems to be no recognition that the motivation for OS as foreplay could equally be to bring pleasure to the spouse, which seems to be West’s context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top